<div dir='auto'><div dir="auto">To my way of thinking there are very few
government "programs" that accomplish the intended objectives. They
are like a therapy for autoimmune disease; Intended to stop a mis-directed
immune response but in fact affecting all immune responses. I agree the
carbon tax has a large adverse effect. </div><div dir="auto">I am
perplexed by what I consider a lack of strength by the government. There are
environmental limits on pollutants. Just toughen them.if they need
to. Drive innovation in the industries that contribute most to the
problem. However that won't happen. Government exists to start
programs. That is their key performance indicator. As a leader in various
business organizations working "with" government I saw over and over programs
devised, started and then .... nothing. On to the next program. Did the
last one work? Who knows? Usually some pseudo-statistical report
would demonstrate success but rarely would the outcome do what was
intended and no one looked at the report. The situation always reverted back
over time. Likely this was because people are people and behavior
modification only works on a few, not the many.</div><div dir="auto">End of
rant!</div><div><br><div class="elided-text">On Nov. 5, 2022 12:55 a.m., R
Bryan Waller <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:<br
type="attribution"><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div dir="ltr">Dave the theory is the
carbon tax will restrict consumption and perhaps it is working in modest
ways;people buying more fuel efficient vehicles or electric vehicles,more
public transit etc.Ottawa claims the tax is redistributed so it is not been
used for research.But it’s real effect is to raise the cost of virtually
everything as it causes price increases for food ,heating ,any trucked goods.It
is one of the major drivers of our inflationary spiral,Bryan<br><br><div
dir="ltr">Sent from my iPad</div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote>On Nov 4, 2022,
at 3:13 PM, Dave Kerr <dave.kerr@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">My
question to-day is: Is the Carbon Tax being used to help solve climate
change, or is it a redistribution of wealth? How much of the Carbon Tax
in Canada is going towards Scientific options? <div>It would appear
Canadians have no option but to pay the tax as we for the most part require
fuel for heating and travel. Especially those of us in Rural Alberta.
Therefore, we are not reducing our Carbon consumption, yet paying out of our
pocket...to whom? If it was 100% for research purposes, it would be much
easier to
understand.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Dave</div></div><br><div
class="elided-text"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 3:05 PM Wynn Payne
<<a href="mailto:wynn.payne@xxxxxxxxx";>wynn.payne@xxxxxxxxx</a>>
wrote:<br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px
solid rgb( 204 , 204 , 204 );padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hi
Bryan<div>Thanks for the detailed explanation. This makes sense to
me.</div><div>As a second layer of the problem how much does Canada contribute
to the problem in relation to the whole world? My understand is that China and
India combined represent maybe 85% of the problem and that Canada is
maybe 1%. Are those good estimates?</div><div>If we are at say 3 % how
much change do we have to do a less significant contributor for the problem? ie
we are making our standard of living more expensive while not being a
significant contributor. Unless we can get China and India on side our efforts
have little effect while economically they manufacturer without the costs
of reducing carbon contribution.</div><div>This last summer there was an
initiative to reduce fertilizer use in grain production. That seemed to
be counter productive to supplying the world what it needs to
survive. </div><div>To all, keep the comments coming while remaining
courteous.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks</div><div>Wynn </div></div><br><div
class="elided-text"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 2:52 PM R Bryan
Waller <<a
href="mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>>
wrote:<br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px
solid rgb( 204 , 204 , 204 );padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Over the millennia earth has been subject to variable climate change
indépendant of the actions of mankind.There have been at least 5 distinct ice
ages in the past 650,000 years.These changes are due to a number of factors
including the tilt of earth orbit,warming and cooling of the oceans,volcanic
activity and variability of energy output by the sun.It is possible to chart
these changes through the examination of ice cores from the Greenland and
Antarctic ice caps.In support of those who believe the changes we are seeing
are due to natural causes we are at a point in the epoch where we are emerging
from the most recent ice age and there is a natural warming trend.<br>
Having said that these natural trends are measured in tens of thousands of
years.Our current <br>
accelerated warming trend has occurred in the last 250 years ,a mere thane
blink of an eye in time.It coïncides with the industrial revolution and the
burning of fossil fuels and explosive population growth.<br>
Earths temperature has increased 5 degrees since the latest ice age more than
10,000 years ago which averages out to .05 degrees every 100 years.Over the
last 100 years the mean temperature of earth has increased 1.4 degrees.The
world is heating up exponentially faster than ever before.That is an undeniable
fact.Of course the warming is not a constant throughout the globe.Some areas
may be cooler than in the previous years.It is the planet as a whole that is
warming at a far greater rate than ever seen in the determinable record.<br>
The reason is the increase in the so called greenhouse gases.The chief of these
is carbon dioxide but also include other gases such as methane and nitrous
oxide.They are called greenhouse gases because of particular qualities.They
transmit light but absorb and radiate infra red light.The world would be
uninhabitable if we did not have greenhouse gases because of their role in
warming the planet.<br>
By the examination of air bubbles cast in ice cores scientists have determined
over the course of discernable history thé concentration of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere has varied from 180 to 300 parts per million .Modern levels are
at more than 400 parts per million and increasing rapidly.There is no question
for the most part these emissions come from the burning of fossil
fuels.Scientist are able to differentiate fossil fuel carbon dioxide from
naturally occurring carbon dioxide.Other greenhouse gases such as methane
and nitrous oxide which have an even greater warming effect are also
increasing.Methane comes from rotting garbage and belching cows and nitrous
oxide from the use of nitrogen fertilizers.<br>
The evidence is overwhelming and is found in the rapidity of these events far
exceeding any natural discernable natural occurrences.There are charts and
scientific literature than explains it far better than I can but here are the
bare bones of the argument.As I have said this is an accepted conclusion from
the vast majority of climate scientists.There may be the odd outlier but I have
never seen one with any credibility.The earth has been able to adapt to changes
over the millennia but can it adapt to dramatic change over centuries? We
humans are ingenious creatures and perhaps we will adapt ….or perhaps
not.Bryan<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPad<br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
